There has to be a spark to start with. If the spark smolders a little and then catches fire I can't think of anything more attractive.
Don't have any time for self obsessed people, bad hygiene or rudeness.
Sexpert
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
herts_darlings1
Over 90 days ago
Straight Female, 56
Bisexual Male, 63
0 miles · Hertfordshire
Forum
Sexpert
Quote by Bluefish2009
I feel Mids makes a good point, in that much of our sentancing is weak in my view.
I have no problem with tax avoidance provided no laws are brocken
That's fine but a bullet in the back of the head for writing something unpleasant on twitter seems a bit ott to me.
Sexpert
Quote by Diane_Andy
Dark nights and cold days invite making love infront of an open fire, I wonder why? Lets face it, a radiator just doesn' t have the same effect...
Yes, but you shouldn't be doing that at the local pub!
and you can't chain your partner to an open fire when it gets really raunchy!
Sexpert
Quote by GnV
Why not just apply Chinese style justice and save a fortune.
Shoot the little scroats in the back of the head in front of their families.
Crime wave over.
We could extend this to people we think might have committed a crime or people we think might be able to commit a crime. If they have children perhaps castrate them so stopping the cycle of crime! (better get em young though, the criminal classes start breeding from an early age after all, do it on there 6th birthday I say)
Then the anti gays, then the gays for making us shoot the anti gays in the back of the head.
Please, somebody tell me when I have gone too far! Little scroats they maybe but if you want a full scale civil war, carry on.
Speaking of civil war, how is Marine Le Pen and the FN party doing by the way over there? What's the latest on twitter? bet it's fascinating.
I was once accused of being too subtle in my sarcasm, just so you know, the above falls in to the category of overt sarcasm.
Sexpert
Quote by skinny
I think it was when she said " I like to have my balls sucked" :sad:
Did you ask if they were hairy or not?
Sexpert
Quote by GnV
Let's not forget, if the McCann's had done the proper thing in the first place and properly arranged supervision of their children whilst going out on a 'bender' with their friends then none of this would have happened.
I subscribe to the view that Mr McCann is an arrogant b*stard and messianic in his view that he can do no bad - particularly as he is a doctor, a godlike twat of the first degree.
My conspiracy theory tendancy on here is (or should be by now) legendary.
Remember Soham? The school caretaker who thrust himself into the limelight to attempt to deflect the possibility of being identified as the culprit? The MP's and other of the arrogant political class who have been imprisoned for lying through their teeth and taking newspapers and others to court for making apparent falsehoods which turned out eventually to be true.... These all remind me of McCann. A desparate man intent of 'proving' his innocence when we all know he is as guilty as hell.
I wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire. A truly despicable excuse for a human being.
I could also point out I have never seen them show any emotion in public with regard this, however!
We are where we are! A not so young girl (anymore) is still missing and I really don't care what her parents are like at this point. She didn't choose her parents and that should not detract from the search for her. It has also brought to the attention of the media that Ben Needham is still missing! last seen on the isle of Crete probably about 20 years ago now.
So back to the twittersnipe GnV, any thoughts?
Sexpert
Quote by Bluefish2009
So question;-
1) Censor social media to stop abuse that is not unlawful.
2) Let social media be a forum for free speech.
There should be no censorship in any society. People have to be free to say what they want and face the consequnces of their words and actions should they do so.
But no, there should be no censorship.
I am not disagreeing with you, but I am wondering how you can dispose of censorship and still punish people for using freedom of speech (face the consequences as you say)
If someone uses words or a phrase to abuse someone there are charges that can be brought against them (consequences) these charges vary from "inciting unrest", racial discrimination, causing an affray or even promoting an illegal organisation.
Recent examples would be inciting people to kill British Soldiers, racial abuse, promoting designated terrorist organisations that have been declared illegal, abusing a neighbour.
Censorship also covers many things, would you support a mans right to freedom of censorship if for example he went to pick up his child from nursery or primary school without any clothes because he is a nudist, or support people who wanted to have sex in public, on a bus or in the local supermarket or just in the street outside your house ?
Censorship does prevent some things that need to be prevented such as racial abuse, something which is censored in a sense as it prevents you from publishing or saying offensive material/speech of a racist nature. A lot of censorship is not about preventing you saying something but how you say it.
Would you support the freedom of the press to publish anything they wanted ?
I don't like all censorship but feel that some censorship is needed.
I think you're getting censorship and against the law mixed up.
I dont know much about these things, so happy to stand corrected, but is it not the laws that set our bounderies for our freedom to exspresion?
I think by and large that is correct, but it doesn't stop personal views which can be hurtful and indeed are deliberately hurtful. I give this as an example only, I would never utter these words other than to give an example. You could, by any medium tell someone you "hope they rot in hell for eternity!" If it were said to me, I would not bat an eyelid, I would not be offended and just carry on with my life. Someone wants me to inhabit a particular place when I do not wish me any harm and I would probably just think "sad arse hole". Now if that same comment was made in relation to a terminally ill child and was also in the public domain so those close to the child were aware, the response would quite rightly be different but the person who made the comment is still not breaking any law that I know of.
If someone said "I hope you get brutally murdered and rot in hell for eternity!" I would still think sad arse hole but then that person is breaking the law as far as I am aware. If you then through race, gender, sexuality in the mix then guilty as can be!
Sexpert
Nina Simone. Do I move you!
I have it in it's original form, so last night I whipped it out! There I was with 7" of pleasure in my hand. Apparently you can get them in 12" as well but I have yet to see one.
I have it in it's original form, so last night I whipped it out! There I was with 7" of pleasure in my hand. Apparently you can get them in 12" as well but I have yet to see one.
Sexpert
We received a message from a guy, a nice message including a couple of photo's. His profile is well presented and he seems like a nice chap. All good so far.
The very last line of his last message said "I travel a lot and get bored in hotel rooms on my own!"
The thought that we maybe slightly more interesting than watching telly in his room made us decide not to pursue this. "DEAL BREAKER!"
Just wondered if anyone else had got to the point of shall we shan't we? then have the other party blow it by one comment, if so what was it? Or what comment would blow it?
The very last line of his last message said "I travel a lot and get bored in hotel rooms on my own!"
The thought that we maybe slightly more interesting than watching telly in his room made us decide not to pursue this. "DEAL BREAKER!"
Just wondered if anyone else had got to the point of shall we shan't we? then have the other party blow it by one comment, if so what was it? Or what comment would blow it?
Sexpert
I am no legal expert but reading the transcripts of what has been alleged, I can not see what laws have been broken. It may be abhorrent, it maybe shocking but I have not seen anything where anybody wants to cause harm to the Mcanns. Yes, they do not wish the Mcanns well but are more suggesting situations the author would like them to populate.
These views seem quite extreme and because the author has made them public, it should not be a surprise that when the cloak of anonymity has been lifted that the media will investigate.
Not withstanding what I have said, I will personally wait till after the inquest to form a view. Who sent the tweets, were they against the law, the authors state of mind and cause of death but what I will say is that high volume social media is there for everybody to use. I choose not to use it (this is the nearest I get to high volume social media) people who want to show off a new car to people who want to insult others to those who actually brutally murder others and post it on you tube. The question has to be do we want a censored social media?
Because I don't use social media, I accept my view is not relevant so I will choose not to share it, other than to say if as many people think censorship is too harsh is about the same as the number as those who don't think it goes far enough, it seems set at just about the right level.
National laws on censorship would be next to useless as it would not cover those outside that particular country. It would need international agreement which although probably not impossible, it would be very difficult.
So if you tighten up the law in the UK, some of these tweets if produced in the UK may fall foul of the law but if the same tweets came from a country with it would be defined by the laws in that country or the country that contains the registered office of the social media company.
So question;-
1) Censor social media to stop abuse that is not unlawful.
2) Let social media be a forum for free speech.
These views seem quite extreme and because the author has made them public, it should not be a surprise that when the cloak of anonymity has been lifted that the media will investigate.
Not withstanding what I have said, I will personally wait till after the inquest to form a view. Who sent the tweets, were they against the law, the authors state of mind and cause of death but what I will say is that high volume social media is there for everybody to use. I choose not to use it (this is the nearest I get to high volume social media) people who want to show off a new car to people who want to insult others to those who actually brutally murder others and post it on you tube. The question has to be do we want a censored social media?
Because I don't use social media, I accept my view is not relevant so I will choose not to share it, other than to say if as many people think censorship is too harsh is about the same as the number as those who don't think it goes far enough, it seems set at just about the right level.
National laws on censorship would be next to useless as it would not cover those outside that particular country. It would need international agreement which although probably not impossible, it would be very difficult.
So if you tighten up the law in the UK, some of these tweets if produced in the UK may fall foul of the law but if the same tweets came from a country with it would be defined by the laws in that country or the country that contains the registered office of the social media company.
So question;-
1) Censor social media to stop abuse that is not unlawful.
2) Let social media be a forum for free speech.
Sexpert
From the outset I will declare my chosen sport is not Football! The whys and wherefores we can save for another thread. Having said that, I can see if not understanding why, it is important to so many people.
We are very good at a number of sports in this country, others we go with the ebb and flow of the available talent. The England Rugby team in 2003 was very good without being great but they didn’t need to be, all they needed to be was better than the rest. The England Cricket team one 3 ashes series on the bounce, good! but were humiliated down under in the winter. My examples of ebbs and flows.
We are good at, snooker, triathlon, rowing, sailing, canoeing, darts, squash to name just a few. Then we get to football.
This is just an observation from an outsider but football is the only sport I can think of where the club system is stronger than the international set up! Or at least in England.
Not sure how this is good for the national side. The vast majority of national players (if not all) come from the premiership. These are privately owned companies or companies listed on the stock exchange. They have a chairman, a board of directors and a management structure designed to do nothing more than make that company as successful as possible. These clubs will purchase assets as they see fit from where ever they are available. This will include the management and the players. When the national side want to pick a player, they basically borrow him from his club, a club that from the board room to the manager does not have to have anybody with any interest in England, only success for that business. So why does a Russian chairman of a French coach give a damn if the England national side is rubbish?
Although I am assured this does not happen, but if I were a coach in the premiership and my job relies on my club doing well, even if I were an English coach if one of my star players was off to play in the world cup I would send him off with a cheery “hope you have a good world cup! Don’t get injured and don’t forget who pays your wages!”
The FA are powerless to stop this as they are, well powerless! The clubs have all the money and where there’s money, there is influence, where there is influence there is power. Mr has as much chance of influencing the England national side as me, none. I am sorry to say that for a lot of supporters, that is just fine! Where I now live the majority of football supporters follow Arsenal. If you ask them which they would prefer, England to win the world cup or Arsenal to win the Champions League, all those I have asked have said Arsenal to win the Champions League. If this attitude is the same at all the top clubs, that means the supporters of the most influential clubs don’t care for the national team.
One last point, although I don’t know this for sure but as for a golden age of English football, yes we won the world cup but is that more of a hiccup than a golden age? I think up until and including 1962, you didn’t have to qualify for the world cup, you were invited to play. We didn’t need to qualify in 1966 as we were hosts. We didn’t have to qualify in 1970 as we were the holders. We failed to qualify in 1974 and 1978 so the first world cup England qualified to play in on merit was 1982. Whilst we were failing to qualify for world cups, weren’t Liverpool, Notts Forest and Aston Villa winning the European cup?
As I say, only an observation looking from outside.
We are very good at a number of sports in this country, others we go with the ebb and flow of the available talent. The England Rugby team in 2003 was very good without being great but they didn’t need to be, all they needed to be was better than the rest. The England Cricket team one 3 ashes series on the bounce, good! but were humiliated down under in the winter. My examples of ebbs and flows.
We are good at, snooker, triathlon, rowing, sailing, canoeing, darts, squash to name just a few. Then we get to football.
This is just an observation from an outsider but football is the only sport I can think of where the club system is stronger than the international set up! Or at least in England.
Not sure how this is good for the national side. The vast majority of national players (if not all) come from the premiership. These are privately owned companies or companies listed on the stock exchange. They have a chairman, a board of directors and a management structure designed to do nothing more than make that company as successful as possible. These clubs will purchase assets as they see fit from where ever they are available. This will include the management and the players. When the national side want to pick a player, they basically borrow him from his club, a club that from the board room to the manager does not have to have anybody with any interest in England, only success for that business. So why does a Russian chairman of a French coach give a damn if the England national side is rubbish?
Although I am assured this does not happen, but if I were a coach in the premiership and my job relies on my club doing well, even if I were an English coach if one of my star players was off to play in the world cup I would send him off with a cheery “hope you have a good world cup! Don’t get injured and don’t forget who pays your wages!”
The FA are powerless to stop this as they are, well powerless! The clubs have all the money and where there’s money, there is influence, where there is influence there is power. Mr has as much chance of influencing the England national side as me, none. I am sorry to say that for a lot of supporters, that is just fine! Where I now live the majority of football supporters follow Arsenal. If you ask them which they would prefer, England to win the world cup or Arsenal to win the Champions League, all those I have asked have said Arsenal to win the Champions League. If this attitude is the same at all the top clubs, that means the supporters of the most influential clubs don’t care for the national team.
One last point, although I don’t know this for sure but as for a golden age of English football, yes we won the world cup but is that more of a hiccup than a golden age? I think up until and including 1962, you didn’t have to qualify for the world cup, you were invited to play. We didn’t need to qualify in 1966 as we were hosts. We didn’t have to qualify in 1970 as we were the holders. We failed to qualify in 1974 and 1978 so the first world cup England qualified to play in on merit was 1982. Whilst we were failing to qualify for world cups, weren’t Liverpool, Notts Forest and Aston Villa winning the European cup?
As I say, only an observation looking from outside.
Sexpert
Hi all,
Hope everyone had a great summer! We did hence we not been about much.
For our first contribution in about 6 months we thought we would pick a topical, meaty, politically charged subject! one on everybodys lips.
Knew a lady who's surname was Hiscock!
The transport minister who introduced the crossing to British roads was called Leslie Hore-Belisha (what's that flashing thing on that pole? It's just a Hore) and I always snigger if I am in a lift installed by "Dunwoody and Porn"
Hope everyone had a great summer! We did hence we not been about much.
For our first contribution in about 6 months we thought we would pick a topical, meaty, politically charged subject! one on everybodys lips.
Knew a lady who's surname was Hiscock!
The transport minister who introduced the crossing to British roads was called Leslie Hore-Belisha (what's that flashing thing on that pole? It's just a Hore) and I always snigger if I am in a lift installed by "Dunwoody and Porn"
Sexpert
Think every bodies boundaries and limits are very personnel, we tend it visit clubs but never go with a pre conceived agenda. If things move on from chat, a quick glance to one another soon tells you if the other is comfortable with the situation and we are always respectful of others when we play, so soft or full swing possibly doesn't cover us. When it comes to kissing though, YES PLEASE!!!! both of us love getting our faces snogged off and snogging the faces off others. That with a hand placed on your lap has to be the most erotic part of swinging for us.
Sexpert
Quote by NakedJaybirds
It would get rid of this body image problem that some women are tortured by .
They may not have flat stomachs and pert breasts but there are many who would love to fuck them , maybe they could ditch the yo yo dieting and expensive dietary crap and get on with their lives .
Not to mention being able to play doctors and nurses.
Sexpert
Swinging couples available on the NHS? Now that's a thought! Maybe clear out some beds from a hospital ward and put in an orgy bed.
I like your thinking.
I like your thinking.
Sexpert
You can't really blame a referee, I wanted England to win but they blew it in the first 20 and last 5 minutes against France, France blew it against Wales so although I think England are the best team, Ireland had the best tournament and deserve to win the 6 Nations!
Sexpert
Congratulations Ireland, worthy winner's and thank you BOD for some outstanding rugby. Good luck for the future.
Sexpert
Don't know a lot about plane's but if it has come down, depending on the angle it hit the water and the speed would there necessarily be a debris field? Remember the crash landing on the Hudson River? Is it possible the pilot put it on the sea in one piece then it sank?
Sexpert
I don't watch a lot of telly but think it makes me feel smug not superior!
I feel superior due to my sparkling personality, ready wit, rugged good looks and the ability to lie about it to people I have never met
Joke apart, I really don't watch much TV, don't think the time in front of the box is an issue though, each to there own. If it becomes an obsession though, that's another thing! I am aware of a friends parter who will not miss an episode of Coronation Street! to a point where when they get back off holiday she watches every episode she has missed back to back before she even unpacks.
24" £150 telly from Asda btw
I feel superior due to my sparkling personality, ready wit, rugged good looks and the ability to lie about it to people I have never met
Joke apart, I really don't watch much TV, don't think the time in front of the box is an issue though, each to there own. If it becomes an obsession though, that's another thing! I am aware of a friends parter who will not miss an episode of Coronation Street! to a point where when they get back off holiday she watches every episode she has missed back to back before she even unpacks.
24" £150 telly from Asda btw
Sexpert
who to boo for the loudest? France or Scotland? think it has to be France lol
Sexpert
Quote by MidsCouple24
I read the comparison with the new laws in Uganda and Russia with interest and it is a good point! As far as I understand it the law in Russia makes it illegal to promote homosexuality positively. It is not illegal to be openly gay. This is a regressive law but it is not making it illegal to be a practising homosexual.
In Uganda it has been made illegal to be gay! To me that is as profound as making it illegal to have green eyes. You can’t help being born with green eyes; you can’t help being born gay! Whenever a state takes it upon itself to make being what you are illegal, whether it be Gay, Jewish, Kurdish, Gypsy it tends to be only the thin end of the wedge. I am not saying this will happen, I am reasonably sure it won’t. In that case political asylum seekers will not be an issue. But if it does, we can not get involved in another countries internal politics (again) so in this instance I hope we will have the humanity along with other countries to offer sanctuary to the persecuted.
If in a alternate universe, this law were past in the UK, half the members of SH would be arrested for admitting they were happy to participate in homosexual acts (see profiles stating gay, bi and bi curious)and the other half for knowingly harbouring persons with these tenancies.
Are well, at least prison wouldn't be boring.
I agree but would point out that whilst Russia has not taken the steps Uganda has in making being Gay or Lesbian an illegal practice, a recent TV programme did show that many Gays and Lesbians are being persecuted and suffering from acts of violence there, acts which apparently are being treated as minor priority by the authorities.
We all know that Adolf Hitler started with laws against people he deemed "unsuitable" which culminated in mass murder.
Russia too has a history under Stalin of murdering undesirables on a larger scale than Germany did under AH.
Uganda has the same history under Idi Amin.
Many other Nations around the world can be accused of mistreatment and a lack of acceptance for the Gay and Lesbian communities within their ranks.
As this post started on the subject of Asylum, the whole immigration subject is also relevant.
Figures released today show that the following
UK Net Immigration 212,000 (up 58,000) in the year ending last september
Migration itself from outside the EU has fallen but the overall figure is up despite the Government setting itself a target to reduce it to less than 100,000 per year.
209,000 of the 212,000 were EU citizens. (up 60,000)
The Majority of those from Spain, Portugal, Italy and Poland.
24,000 from Bulgaria and Romania. (up 15,000)
I would love to know the full figures of Migration FROM the UK but the most they said today is that far fewer people are migrating from here than in previous years.
I think you have to split migration from persons present themselves at our boarders and ask for political asylum, they have to demonstrate that they are in danger of being persecuted in there own country either for what they are or what they believe. Migration is the flow of people usually for there own benefit and not because they fear persecution.
Sexpert
I find your reference to women in mini skirts sexist in the extreme! Once again men find themselves excluded on gender alone.
Sexpert
Quote by deancannock
I got made redundant !!!
You may think not a thing to be cheerful for....BUT
I was just about to hand my notice in as got a new job with more money.....now I get 4 months redundancy pay as well....RESULT !!!
Well done, the Milky Bar's are on Dean!
Sexpert
It's been a bit of a rough winter so thought we could all bask in the tranquility of others.
Add a bit of ying to counter the yang.
Reason to be cheerful part 1. The daffodils are out in my garden!
Add a bit of ying to counter the yang.
Reason to be cheerful part 1. The daffodils are out in my garden!
Sexpert
I read the comparison with the new laws in Uganda and Russia with interest and it is a good point! As far as I understand it the law in Russia makes it illegal to promote homosexuality positively. It is not illegal to be openly gay. This is a regressive law but it is not making it illegal to be a practising homosexual.
In Uganda it has been made illegal to be gay! To me that is as profound as making it illegal to have green eyes. You can’t help being born with green eyes; you can’t help being born gay! Whenever a state takes it upon itself to make being what you are illegal, whether it be Gay, Jewish, Kurdish, Gypsy it tends to be only the thin end of the wedge. I am not saying this will happen, I am reasonably sure it won’t. In that case political asylum seekers will not be an issue. But if it does, we can not get involved in another countries internal politics (again) so in this instance I hope we will have the humanity along with other countries to offer sanctuary to the persecuted.
If in a alternate universe, this law were past in the UK, half the members of SH would be arrested for admitting they were happy to participate in homosexual acts (see profiles stating gay, bi and bi curious)and the other half for knowingly harbouring persons with these tenancies.
Are well, at least prison wouldn't be boring.
In Uganda it has been made illegal to be gay! To me that is as profound as making it illegal to have green eyes. You can’t help being born with green eyes; you can’t help being born gay! Whenever a state takes it upon itself to make being what you are illegal, whether it be Gay, Jewish, Kurdish, Gypsy it tends to be only the thin end of the wedge. I am not saying this will happen, I am reasonably sure it won’t. In that case political asylum seekers will not be an issue. But if it does, we can not get involved in another countries internal politics (again) so in this instance I hope we will have the humanity along with other countries to offer sanctuary to the persecuted.
If in a alternate universe, this law were past in the UK, half the members of SH would be arrested for admitting they were happy to participate in homosexual acts (see profiles stating gay, bi and bi curious)and the other half for knowingly harbouring persons with these tenancies.
Are well, at least prison wouldn't be boring.
Sexpert
Quote by Max777
Not sure what 90 percent of this bollocks has to do with Ugandan gays! Whilst you all rip lumps out of each other I might right a letter to the Ugandan gay times! Tell them they might as well stay where they are because we are too busy talking shit to give a damn!
Unfortunately the O.P. Has a tendency to go off on all sorts of tangents and post all sorts of superfluous waffle in order to try and argue his corner. Hence all the ensuing shit!
Not necessarily true,I think this is something that a lot of people feel strongly about on both sides of the argument. I will have my view and I am interested to hear the views of others. Not facile tittle tattle about who said what about this and that and when.
Sexpert
Not sure what 90 percent of this bollocks has to do with Ugandan gays! Whilst you all rip lumps out of each other I might right a letter to the Ugandan gay times! Tell them they might as well stay where they are because we are too busy talking shit to give a damn!
Sexpert
Quote by MidsCouple24
First and foremost can I say, I do not believe the law in Uganda that says you can and probably will be jailed for life if proven guilty of being gay is wrong, it is wrong to make being gay in any form illegal.
But a UK minister saying we will look very closely at applications for asylum of people applying to the UK for asylum on the grounds they are gay is also wrong.
We cannot accept breaking the laws of your Nation grounds for granting asylum here, it is not our place to decide which laws Nations have are right or wrong just because they differ from our own.
We can try and get Uganda to change their minds, we can impose sanctions, we can lobby other Nations to join us in our desire to get them to change their minds but we cannot harbour people who break laws no matter how sympathetic we are, it would also open a loop hole whereby any Ugandan wishing to come to the UK simply has to claim to be gay.
One suggestion was to stop aid for aids, a Ugandan spokesperson said most of the aid does not reach the people who need it but then went on to say it should not be stopped, confusing to say the least because if only a trickle of the aid reaches those that need it why should we not stop it.
Sadly that is the case with a lot of aid paid to such Countries.
Is this not persecution of a gender? Think they have every right to expect sanctuary. Not only are gay you men and woman being persecuted, you face arrest if you knowing don't inform the authorities of someone you know is gay! Can't think of any group of people more deserving.
